Hamiltonian for spherically symmetric potential

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a particle of mass m moving in a central potential V(r), focusing on deriving a one-dimensional equation for the radial momentum's time derivative using Hamilton's equations. The participants are examining the concept of an effective potential, V_eff(r), which incorporates both the central potential and a term related to angular momentum.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the derivation of the effective potential and question its distinction from the normal potential. There is discussion about the implications of angular momentum on the forces acting on the particle and the nature of the centrifugal effect in different reference frames.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the nature of the effective potential and its relation to angular momentum, while others express confusion regarding the assumptions made about the reference frame and the treatment of angular momentum as a scalar. The conversation is ongoing, with participants seeking further clarification and understanding.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted uncertainty regarding the treatment of angular momentum in the context of classical mechanics versus quantum mechanics, as well as the implications of using curvilinear coordinates in the analysis.

Vitor Pimenta
Messages
10
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


A particle of mass m moves in a "central potential" , V(r), where r denotes the radial displacement of the particle from a fixed origin.
From Hamilton´s equations, obtain a "one-dimensional" equation for {\dot p_r}, in the form {{\dot p}_r} = - \frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left[ {{V_{eff}}\left( r \right)} \right], where {V_{eff}}\left( r \right) denotes an "effective" potential that is a funcion of r only.

Homework Equations


Hamiltonian: H = \frac{{{p_r}^2}}{{2m}} + \frac{{{L^2}}}{{2m{r^2}}} + V\left( r \right) , where L is the angular momentum with respect to the origin, which is a constant of the motion.

\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial r}} = - {\dot p_r}

The Attempt at a Solution


\begin{array}{l}<br /> {{\dot p}_r} = - \frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial r}} = - \frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left[ {\frac{{{L^2}}}{{2m{r^2}}} + V\left( r \right)} \right]\\<br /> \therefore {V_{eff}}\left( r \right) = \frac{{{L^2}}}{{2m{r^2}}} + V\left( r \right)<br /> \end{array}

The problem is that it doesn´t make sense to me that the effective potential is different than the normal one ( V(r) ). Besides, the force acting on the particle shouldn´t have a dependence on its angular momentum L.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that \frac{{{L^2}}}{{2m{r^2}}} has the form of a potential energy the centripetal force could produce ...
 
Vitor Pimenta said:

The Attempt at a Solution


\begin{array}{l}<br /> {{\dot p}_r} = - \frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial r}} = - \frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left[ {\frac{{{L^2}}}{{2m{r^2}}} + V\left( r \right)} \right]\\<br /> \therefore {V_{eff}}\left( r \right) = \frac{{{L^2}}}{{2m{r^2}}} + V\left( r \right)<br /> \end{array}

The problem is that it doesn´t make sense to me that the effective potential is different than the normal one ( V(r) ). Besides, the force acting on the particle shouldn´t have a dependence on its angular momentum L.

The effective potential is different from the normal potential because there's an apparent "centrifugal" effect on the radial motion. The effective potential should not contain the operator ##L^{2}##, you should replace it with its eigenvalue for orbital quantum number ##l##.
 
hilbert2, thanks for the reply !

I wonder what reference frame the Hamiltonian is about, since it includes the effect of a "false" force (centrifugal). Also, L^2 is not an operator, but a scalar number (which is a constant of the motion), so what was that about replacing it for a quantum number, since we´re not considering quantum mechanics ?
 
Vitor Pimenta said:
hilbert2, thanks for the reply !

I wonder what reference frame the Hamiltonian is about, since it includes the effect of a "false" force (centrifugal). Also, L^2 is not an operator, but a scalar number (which is a constant of the motion), so what was that about replacing it for a quantum number, since we´re not considering quantum mechanics ?

It is not about any particular reference frame, you can use whatever coordinates you wish (you may even mix spatial and momentum variables as long as your transformation is canonical).

It is not a fictitious effect, your coordinate system is curvilinear and you should expect the motion in one direction (in this case parametrised through the angular momentum, which is a constant of motion) to affect the motion in the other coordinates. Thus, in a rotating coordinate system, it would be the effect of the centrifugal force, while in a fixed coordinate system it is an effect of moving in curvilinear coordinates. The result is of course going to be the same.

Vitor Pimenta said:
Besides, the force acting on the particle shouldn´t have a dependence on its angular momentum L.
This is the effective potential. It tells you how to consider motion in one direction only, in the fixed frame it tells you (for example) the force needed to keep the body moving on a circular path - this does depend on the angular momentum.
 
I get it somewhat, but this needs further exploration by me :smile: (yay, more fun incoming)
Thanks again for all the help
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K